Moderator: NecronLord
What part of that did you understand to be a desire to read more Stackpole? Really, what have I ever done to you to deserve that?Imperial Overlord wrote:I thought Ulric died by Arrow IV artillery missles, but my memory for Stackpole books isn't that great. In fact, I wish it was worse.
Actually, it isn't. It actually fits in with the extreme range rules as well as the VR style(which would not be surprising considering that the author apparently used VR as a guide to mech combat)Hotfoot wrote:You mean Star Lord by Donald J. Phillips? It's the only CBT book I could find that fits the description. However, just keep in mind that if this source has different ranges for weapons than other sources, then the sources are conflicting. This makes it difficult for your later point to hold up, in fact.
You mean that you simply haven't read threads where I participated, that's all.Please cite the source for the 20-30mm machine guns. Every source I've ever read on the subject cites them as arrays if .50 caliber machineguns (12.7mm).
Scorpion TR 3026The 20mm Gatling gun is a time-proven weapon, giving the Scorpion good defensive firepower with plenty of punch. Though some users of the tank have tried 30mm machine guns, the Gatling gun’s high rate of fire makes larger shells unnecessary.
And? The fact is where is the math that shows mechs can't handle this recoil?Ridiculous. I know quite a bit about battletech, but I'm telling you that there is a physical limit to how much recoil the damn things can take before they topple over. Additionally, you have to consider that Battletech combat COMMONLY has the guns firing perpendicular to the direction of travel, which means jack shit for helping compensate for recoil. The torque put on the mech for firing Guass Rifles and autocannons mounted 6-10m above the ground is not trivial, especially if you are going to equate them to modern tank guns in strength.
Enforcer TR 3025.The autocannon's massive recoil is also efficiently controlled, which reduces the amount of 'Mech shudder and permits the pilot to fire his other weapons simultaneously without worrying about the recoil throwing off his aim.
So you're seriously trying to argue that this particular armor is perfect protection against an AC/5 and down in damage? Bullshit. It says it can keep the rotor operational when hit by a stray shot, maybe two. It says nothing about sustained fire. Given that it is repeatedly stated in Battletech Tech manuals that BT armor ablates when struck, like peeling layers from an onion, there's no reason to assume that suddenly now they've got traditional armor which flawlessly protects against rounds 40mm and lower. Brilliant.That's not strictly true.It's a long list. However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the machineguns in BT are roughly equivilant to the Light Autocannons in HG. Since BT armor has consistantly been described as ablative in nature by all the tech manuals I've seen, it stands to reason that enough of these MG/autocannons can strip a mech down to its barest bones given enough shots.
Donar TR 3060The rotors’ armor protection does prevent accidental damage and keeps them operational even when struck by fire of up to 40mm caliber.
So? All this shows is that Mech armour is a DUAL defensive mechanism.And there are absolute quotes in the tech manuals and core books (not to mention novels) concerning how the armor ablates. There is no other reason the combat model could possibly work as it does if rounds got deflected off constantly, doing less or more damage depending on how "well" they hit. If a shot hits, armor is removed. Call it a game mechanic if you like, it doesn't change the fact that it is how it's handled in the books, fluff, and tech manuals. It's pretty much the ONLY reason why LRMs even work at all.
Classic battletech website. Alternatively, BMR offers a similar quote, as do Mechcommander manual even. Note the bolded words.The aligned-crystal steel has excellent heat-conducting properties, and so it provides excellent protection against lasers and particle-beam weapons. An inner layer of boron nitride impregnated with diamond monofilament stops high-explosive armor piercing (HEAP) rounds and fast neutrons.
So? It may very well be that they lack the specialised pecularities of btech weapons, such that they are utterly unable to penetrate mech armour at all.In Heavy Gear, a heavy machinegun will not do any damage whatsoever to a main battle tank. Similarly, a light autocannon will tend to do about jack shit to a Landship. Meanwhile, in Battletech, a Mech can be pecked to death by another mech with twelve machinegun mounts (machineguns, which, by the way, were originally meant to deal with infantry, not Mechs).
If so, its a calculated "stupidity", because the trend is echoed THROUGHOUT battletech. Author intent aside, SOD clearly shows that battletech weapons range are NOT limited by the weapon velocity, because we know that such weapons are effective even when converted to battlespace rules, which have ranges of KILOMETERS!All you're doing is showing just how stupid the creators of Battletech were. You do realize this, right?
Nope. What I'm suggesting is that the very well mapped out fact that mech armour is penetrated by MASS. It violates physics because deforming energy is apparently an insignificant part of it.]Because the creators of the universe were unforgivable idiotic when it came to physics. Are you trying to argue that somehow Battletech armor is made from some sort of unobtanium which is better penetrated and destroyed by low velocity rounds? Additionally, are you forgetting the simply MASSIVE disparity in size in the OPPOSITE direction when it comes to autocannons? Where the hell are you even quoting from? Every canon source I have ever seen shows AC/2 through AC/20 as smaller to larger in caliber. Fucking hell, just look at the difference between a centurion's autocannon and an Urbanmech's, or a Hunchbacks!
Actually, here's the shocking news. They don't, conflict. In fact, the only conflict in sources that ever comes about is from novels, not surprising considering that certain novels like the Jade Falcon triology can't even decide which mech the main character is piloting, or its weapons configuration. (God, Dawn keeps switching between a hellbringer and a Masakari so often, even in the same FUCKING CHAPTER)Now you're just being dishonest. You admitted in your first paragraph that there are conflicting sources by quoting a source that has conflicting ranges of weapons from other canonically accepted sources. Your descriptions of autocannnons (you describe AC/2's as BOTH 20mm AND 50mm, citing different sources in order to do so) and machineguns similarly conflict, to say nothing of your nonsense about magically impervious armor.
There are no equivalent armour and penetration values. The only way for Btech to be internally consistent is that physics is thrown out the window.Now, I've posted calculations straight from Dream Pod 9, the official source on all things Heavy Gear, as to equivilant armor and penetration values. You might want to consider doing the same.
Done. ECM? mentioned, although clearly not the reason for the awkward range. The clue lies elsewhere, and despite the logical holes of the mass impacter model, it remains the most internally consistent model for Btech. Well, it was, before AP rounds came out.we have to try and determine some way to rationalize all the things we see, while making as few assumptions as possible. Uber ECM that's never mentioned or described? That's out. Technological backslide that's been plaguing the galaxy for hundreds of years and a key point to the setting? Sounds reasonable, we can chalk up most of the problems to that.
Guess what? I already did. I been doing this for years my friend, since 1999 at the very least.When we look at the projectile weapons, we have to take what little data they give us that doesn't conflict and work out equations for the high end and the low end. Please consider doing that, and then come back to state your case again.
Sorry, but that's because you simply don't know the Btech universe. That's NOT my problem. My sources are actually CONSISTENT with Btech . YOURs aren't.Oh, and don't give me shit about how there are no inconsistances when your entire post is RIFE with them.
I been meaning to ask you about this, but its a rather small nitpick. How did you get 112kg? My 125 pound gauss slug quote gives me 114kg. Furthermore, considering that the gauss rifle does core through light mechs, even on max armour.....Dark Hellion wrote:Nice nephtys, to bad none of the novels support your claims about Btech power at all. The Gauss Rifle has a clear upper limit built in to both its damage and the recoil, it fires a 112Kg slug at mach 2.2. And based on description from the books, go with the game mechanics based ablative armour, it makes mechs tougher. It is easy to construct even 20ton mechs that can survive gauss hits in game, many descriptions of Gauss rifles in fluff state that one shot cores small-medium mechs.
Yet, they exist. How peculiar. In fact, since you think that autocannons are restricted to calibre, let's have some more fun from the opposite side, shall we?Regardless of how you explain it, there has to be some level of parity inside the class. You can't have two vastly different weapons and call them both AC/2 because they are, well, vastly diffferent. It also just doesn't explain why weapons with better range do less damage, while weapons with lower range do more damage. It doesn't explain it at all. In fact, the damage models seem to flipped between energy and kinetic weapons. Energy weapons should do less damage at long range, because of atmospheric scattering, whereas kinetic weapons don't travel long enough to give a damn about atmospheric resistance to reduce penetration. Very strange indeed.
Mars TR 3060. The above mentioned autocannon is a LB-10X, hmmm, that's 30mm above the 120mm autocannon you think it is for AC/20, or 50mm above that for the AC/10.A hull-mounted 150mm LB-X autocannon provides devastating anti-vehicle firepower, but the gun can be raised only 10 degrees above horizontal and is of minimal use against aerial targets.
Hetzer TR 3025. Oops, looks like th e AC/20 and the clan LB-10X has the same calibre.The Hetzer’s only saving grace is its Crusher SH Cannon. This 150 mm autocannon is well known for its reliability and accuracy. With the burst of ten hyper-velocity slugs that the Crusher fires
Demolisher, TR 3025. Dammed, now, that's 65mm above the AC/20 rating.35mm above the Hetzer, yet, its deals the same damage and range.2 185mm ChemJet Guns
How about you are wrong on all counts?So, wait, this magic half-inch of armor is poor and bulky compared to the incredible edible armor of "modern" BTech? This in itself is a massive inconsitancy. Either the results of the test were bullshit, or technology and history have deteriorated more than we'd normally think in the Inner Sphere, because last I checked, even at the best measure, BTech weapons are not massively superior to modern day technology, yet they can blast each other well enough. So which is it?
The Mackie's armor, though weak for an assault 'Mech by modern standards, was more than adequate for the first 'Mech ever built.
Mackie TR 3058.Because the Mackie was the first BattleMech, it mounted a prototype engine, cockpit and armor. These components are heavier than standard, and so the Mackie does not adhere to Standard BattleTech game rules.
The above quotes clearly state that the Mackie armour was weaker than modern standards, not to mention that to achieve the same level of ablative protection, it was heavier than norm.The Mackie's design has been rendered obsolete by six centuries of technological development. No House army or mercenary unit in the Inner Sphere, nor any armed forces operating in the Periphery are known to deploy this prototype 'Mech
This doesn't really tell us anything about the quality of the armor itself.The Mackie's armor, though weak for an assault 'Mech by modern standards, was more than adequate for the first 'Mech ever built.
Massive recoil.... right... compared to what? A slingshot?The autocannon's massive recoil is also efficiently controlled, which reduces the amount of 'Mech shudder and permits the pilot to fire his other weapons simultaneously without worrying about the recoil throwing off his aim.
So their armor protects against lasers and PBs. It also stops either HEAT rounds or Armor Piercing High Explosive rounds. I think they mean HEAT.The aligned-crystal steel has excellent heat-conducting properties, and so it provides excellent protection against lasers and particle-beam weapons. An inner layer of boron nitride impregnated with diamond monofilament stops high-explosive armor piercing (HEAP) rounds and fast neutrons.
Meaning that you've essentially pissed on my leg and told me it's raining. Are you intentionally being dishonest, or do you not see reason?PainRack wrote:Actually, it isn't. It actually fits in with the extreme range rules as well as the VR style(which would not be surprising considering that the author apparently used VR as a guide to mech combat)
However, those rules aren't part of game mechanics, insofar as game mechanics are tournament rules as opposed to House rules.
The Mech version outwieghing the standard version can be considered plausible by the fact that the MG in question could easily be an array of such similar machineguns. However, since we've already shown disparity in caliber size in every other kinetic weapon in the game...You mean that you simply haven't read threads where I participated, that's all.
Scorpion TR 3026The 20mm Gatling gun is a time-proven weapon, giving the Scorpion good defensive firepower with plenty of punch. Though some users of the tank have tried 30mm machine guns, the Gatling gun’s high rate of fire makes larger shells unnecessary.
The .50 calibre gun was a infantry machine gun, that most people assumed was mech MGs, despite the fact that the mech MG outweighs it by 10 times.... although it was a plausible guess, what with the now cancelled 3 ton ground car.
God you're fucking stupid. How many times do I have to repeat myself. PHYSICS SHOWS THAT THERE IS A LOGICAL LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF RECOIL A MECH CAN TAKE. THERE IS NO MAGIC RECOIL ABSORBING FORCE FIELD. THIS MEANS WE CAN DEFINE AN UPPER LIMIT TO MECH FIREPOWER BASED ON THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FORCE A MECH COULD TAKE BEFORE TOPPLING OVER.And? The fact is where is the math that shows mechs can't handle this recoil?
You...do realize that one "turn" in battletech is not one second, right? Right? Even if we assume the standard motive capabilities of a mech are okay in the universe, (which I have been) there is STILL a logical limit on how much force they can take before they are knocked on their giant robot asses.This when we can do calcs from "Mechs can stop on a dime" (4th Edt Battletech), allowing us to do calcs based on momentum wise for a mech travelling from full to non stop.
You're an idiot if you can't see that all that quote does is give me the ammunition I need to determine how high or low the maximum firepower of a Mech's autocannon is.Alternatively, we have quotes like thisEnforcer TR 3025.The autocannon's massive recoil is also efficiently controlled, which reduces the amount of 'Mech shudder and permits the pilot to fire his other weapons simultaneously without worrying about the recoil throwing off his aim.
Clearly, the argument that mechs can't even fire autocannons without falling is bunk from the above quote.
The Mackie Trial run is clearly wankfest bullshit, since it shows armor properties that have never again been replicated by any mech I've ever seen in fluff or game, not to mention is entirely ignorant of the penetration of a 120mm MBT cannon. Please, do tell how a 120mm cannon fired at high velocity could possibly bounce off primitive mech armor when 20mm cannons with much lower KE can tear it to shreds?So? All this shows is that Mech armour is a DUAL defensive mechanism.
It provides the first layer of protection by negating the attack, aka deflecting it or by conducting away the energy, the second layer of protection emerges from ablation.
The above are supported by DIRECT quotes, or at least, the physical impact would be proven beyond doubt to others once I can bloody find the stupid TR where it came from. However, if neccesary, I can refer to the Mackie Trial Run for further proof of this "dual" protection, as the Mackie armour deflected the incoming shell WITHOUT ablating. Therefore, in order to do damage to mechs, you must first penetrate this defensive barrier, and even then, damage to its internals are not scored because the armour ablates for protection.
And you're an idiot to assume that "protection" means "perfect protection" and that "stops" means "stops cold with no damage to the armor". In fact, the description above best suits ablating armor, because little to no damage occurs to what it is protecting, though the armor itself is destroyed in the process.The model isn't a figment of my imagination. Its works, and is not only supported by game fluff, but is actually ADVOCATED by it.Classic battletech website. Alternatively, BMR offers a similar quote, as do Mechcommander manual even. Note the bolded words.The aligned-crystal steel has excellent heat-conducting properties, and so it provides excellent protection against lasers and particle-beam weapons. An inner layer of boron nitride impregnated with diamond monofilament stops high-explosive armor piercing (HEAP) rounds and fast neutrons.
What specialized propeties do Battletech weapons have? So far, all you've done is wanked that the armor is uber and the weapons are uber, but given no logical reason for it. You've shown an appalling grasp of physics and the methods of observation, instead trying to claim that because BTech does science so badly, we have to throw science and the scientific method completely out the window and make special rules for BTech because, well, you say so. Bullshit. Cite what makes BTech weapons so obscenely special, or shut the fuck up about it and admit that your argument is flawed.So? It may very well be that they lack the specialised pecularities of btech weapons, such that they are utterly unable to penetrate mech armour at all.
"It's not stupid because they're consistant." Might work, except that we've shown several cases of inconsistancy, especially concerning the Mackie trial. You've yet to show HOW BTech armor and weapons are "special" when no special tech is ever claimed for the weapons (just the armor) and the infamous Mackie trial doesn't hold up to scrutiny.If so, its a calculated "stupidity", because the trend is echoed THROUGHOUT battletech. Author intent aside, SOD clearly shows that battletech weapons range are NOT limited by the weapon velocity, because we know that such weapons are effective even when converted to battlespace rules, which have ranges of KILOMETERS!
And conversion from battletech to battlespace clearly state that mechs targeting computers are optimised for ranges of kilometers, suggesting that their weapons can and do hit that far.
So you're seriously saying that all that's needed is large mass, and that Kinetic energy has nothing to do with it? Wow. Fucking brilliant. Why don't mech's self-destruct when they collide with each other at low speeds then?Nope. What I'm suggesting is that the very well mapped out fact that mech armour is penetrated by MASS. It violates physics because deforming energy is apparently an insignificant part of it.
One might expect the range for an AC/2 to be 20-30mm, while the range of an AC/5 to be 40-50mm. However, it makes no damn sense whatsoever to have an AC/2 itself range the entire scope from 20-50mm, because once you vary enough from one end to the other, the ballistics would fundamentally change, making it behave as a different "class" of weapon.As for massive disparity, are you smoking? The official autocannon entry in BMR and BTC has the range of autocannons from 20-50mm and 30-120mm and above. That's for light autocannons(AC/2+5) and heavy autocannons(AC/10+20)
This shows that even the classic definition for autocannons show otherwise.
If you can't disprove it, just shut up.
Above qutoes are from TR 3060, and the article can be clearly seen from the given names of the vehicles.
"Hur hur hur this game is so unrealistic that I can say anything I want about it and not worry about getting my ass reamed by not following the scientific method!"Actually, here's the shocking news. They don't, conflict. In fact, the only conflict in sources that ever comes about is from novels, not surprising considering that certain novels like the Jade Falcon triology can't even decide which mech the main character is piloting, or its weapons configuration. (God, Dawn keeps switching between a hellbringer and a Masakari so often, even in the same FUCKING CHAPTER)
Considering that game fluff is what we go by, its amazing to see the consistent trend in Btech. The problem is, if SOD is to go by, then it obviously shows that Btech doesn't follow a single iota of physics. Or any other ology for that matter
We can chat about the economy later. Right now, let's focus on the subject at hand, yes?This is the same universe that has an economy of scarcity, yet, the average person has the purchasing power of US 3000 or US 5000 dollars a MONTH.(Depending on the year of Btech and the usuage of 1990 USD and 2000 USD)
Hell, I'm still wondering why it would make economic sense to limit the work week to 35 hours per week for semi-conducters factories and 30 hours per week for other industries(House Kurita sourcebook, with regards to the riot in Brazil during Terran Alliance days)
To which I again say bullshit. Some things in BTech can be ignored by SoD, but you can't just throw it all out because it's suddenly too hard on the system.There are no equivalent armour and penetration values. The only way for Btech to be internally consistent is that physics is thrown out the window.
I don't deny that there is ECM in the BTech universe, just that it's responsible for a Gundam-like effect. Meanwhile, your own theory has holes shot all up in it. Maybe something using better science would come up with a more consistant answer?Done. ECM? mentioned, although clearly not the reason for the awkward range. The clue lies elsewhere, and despite the logical holes of the mass impacter model, it remains the most internally consistent model for Btech. Well, it was, before AP rounds came out.
So let's see the calcs you asshole.Guess what? I already did. I been doing this for years my friend, since 1999 at the very least.
I fail to see how the Ablating model DOESN'T work for BTech. Have you perhaps considered that up until the inclusion of the Gauss Rifle, most high-end weapons in fact were designed to fire clustered munitions which caused more armor to ablate than a smaller cluster would? This could easily explain the shorter ranges we see with larger damage kinetic weapons. But no, you have to wave your hand and come up with something that makes no sense in order to explain this away. Meanwhile, it wouldn't change the fact that massed fire from multiple gears using 25mm autocannons and what are essentially SRM pods would eventually take down a mech from considerable range on the ground.What has emerged is this. Btech armour has become overtly specialised, probably as a result of the requirement that mass is proportional to damage.(Physical calcs, falling calcs, trend of calibre and gauss rifle, note of ROF and calibre in scorpion TR). Instead of conventional physics where what is calculated is the deforming energy required to warp armour, btech weapons limiting factor against armour is something else. We aren't able to postulate the mechanism, but so far, the limits would appear to be mass related. Mech weapons range are severely limited due to this armour. Furthermore, game mechanics must also tie in. The game range is STILL only a "simulation of mech combat in the 31st century"(direct quote from Battletech). There are aspects of it where its not fully simulated and one of this is range. We know from Battlespace that mechs are capable of engaging targets in space, and these targets are measured in hundreds of meters, if not kilometers range at least. This is not just a game mechanic as incidents have been observed from fluff history.
And in space for Heavy Gear, range is also increased (hex size in ground warfare is 50m, space warfare is 500m, air combat is 250m). Of course, in HG space combat, nukes are thrown around like candy, because CEF and Terra Novans don't have some silly sense of "honor" keeping them from nuking the fuck out of each other in the void.However, what makes the limited range of mech combat an accurate simulation? The answer to it is armour, accuracy and time limitations. A btech turn is 10 sec, aerospace is 6 minutes IIRC and I have absolutely no idea about Battlespace. However, as the time limitations goes up, so do the range of weapons. Due to my policy on canon(as opposed to FASA), the Somerset strikers 2.1km quote, neither are the extreme range rules used against objections to this. Therefore, this aspect is not proven. Armour wise, you just seen a tiny aspect of the facts above. Accuracy is utterly unproven, but is a reasonable speculation.
You're so full of shit it hurts. The Mackie test ALONE is massively inconsistant with what we see in the BTech universe. A much more massive shell (120mm) against old, inefficient, outdated armor just bounces off after a direct hit in the Mackie test, while a 20-50mm autocannon shot can still rip armor off of any given location of a mech. Do you understand how this is inconsistent, or are you really just that stupid?Sorry, but that's because you simply don't know the Btech universe. That's NOT my problem. My sources are actually CONSISTENT with Btech . YOURs aren't.
Once again, I will have to point out that weapons of vastly different caliber will have vastly different ballistic models, and attempting to group them together is lunacy. You can wave your hands as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the properties of a weapon do change considerably between the different bore sizes.Yet, they exist. How peculiar. In fact, since you think that autocannons are restricted to calibre, let's have some more fun from the opposite side, shall we?
Mars TR 3060. The above mentioned autocannon is a LB-10X, hmmm, that's 30mm above the 120mm autocannon you think it is for AC/20, or 50mm above that for the AC/10.A hull-mounted 150mm LB-X autocannon provides devastating anti-vehicle firepower, but the gun can be raised only 10 degrees above horizontal and is of minimal use against aerial targets.Hetzer TR 3025. Oops, looks like th e AC/20 and the clan LB-10X has the same calibre.The Hetzer’s only saving grace is its Crusher SH Cannon. This 150 mm autocannon is well known for its reliability and accuracy. With the burst of ten hyper-velocity slugs that the Crusher fires
Demolisher, TR 3025. Dammed, now, that's 65mm above the AC/20 rating.35mm above the Hetzer, yet, its deals the same damage and range.2 185mm ChemJet Guns
Sorry, the trend is certain. Its has been obvious to many on this board that the ACs damage is dealt based on a mixture of ROF and calibre. The problem has been why range is also linked to this, something I'm arguing is to do with the tight grouping required under my mass impacter model.
How about you're full of shit? Even accounting for your "mass impactor" model, the Mackie's armor should have been vaporized by the massive 120mm shell of the Merkava. The fact that NOTHING HAPPENED only goes to show how full of shit the example is (and by extension, you are), when SMALLER ROUNDS TEAR UP THE IMPROVED MODERN VERSION OF THE SAME ARMOR.How about you are wrong on all counts?The Mackie's armor, though weak for an assault 'Mech by modern standards, was more than adequate for the first 'Mech ever built.Mackie TR 3058.Because the Mackie was the first BattleMech, it mounted a prototype engine, cockpit and armor. These components are heavier than standard, and so the Mackie does not adhere to Standard BattleTech game rules.The above quotes clearly state that the Mackie armour was weaker than modern standards, not to mention that to achieve the same level of ablative protection, it was heavier than norm.The Mackie's design has been rendered obsolete by six centuries of technological development. No House army or mercenary unit in the Inner Sphere, nor any armed forces operating in the Periphery are known to deploy this prototype 'Mech
One of the tanks opened fire. Its shot was true and hit the 'Mech just above the right hip. Everyone in the brightly lit bunker seemed to hold his breath as all the readouts fuzzed into snow at the blast interference. No damage! A piece of steel no thicker than my finger, strengthened by radiation casting techniques and impregnated with a sheet of woven diamond fibers, had stopped cold an armor-piercing shell. That same shell would have gone straight through a third of a meter of normal steel.
If hex conversions mean jack shit, then why the fuck hasn't the ability to engage targets in space, at ranges of kilometers been considered the norm for mechs? Especially with the "targeting computers" quote?Gunhead wrote:What the fuck? Hex conversions mean jack shit. Aerospace fighters get multi km in ranges aerotech and battlespace but when same fighters are used in mech scale their weapons lose their multi km ranges.
So on that note HG artillery can fire to 600km because in HG an air hex is roughly 250m and a ground one is 50m.
So? The argument that the Mackie armour was actually superior is clearly hogwash.This doesn't really tell us anything about the quality of the armor itself.
More likely the case being that Mackie just has less armor than modern assault mech. Taking into account 600 years of developement, I'm sure they did improve the design. At least they made it lighter, so it could be modern mech armor isn't any better at stopping stuff. Modern mechs just carry more of it.
It is telling, because it shows that the stupid argument that a mech can't fire the autocannon without the recoil knocking him over is stupid, dumb, infantile and shows no knowledge of the Btech universe.Massive recoil.... right... compared to what? A slingshot?
No really, this just ain't telling me anything. A 120mm cannon has massive recoil when compared to a 20mm AC. I know this because I know their velocities and mass.
So AC recoil maybe massive in the BT universe, but that ain't saying much.
And who said anything about that?So their armor protects against lasers and PBs. It also stops either HEAT rounds or Armor Piercing High Explosive rounds. I think they mean HEAT.
No mention about high velocity DU/tungsten rods.
As to that "stop" bit. If by this people mean "will stop regardless of energy delivered" please search for: No limits fallacy.
-Gunhead
It does that because it assumes that a tight grouping of MULTIPLE shells is required to break through mech armour.Hotfoot wrote: Clearly the trial describes this as a DIRECT HIT, not a glancing shot that was deflected.
Please now tell me how your model accounts for a massive 120mm shell doing no damage to armor that, according to you, ablates more to mass than any other factor.
Stop the BS hotfoot. What did Lord Sathis ask for? Right, he asked for novel incidents where the range shown was greater than game mechanics.Meaning that you've essentially pissed on my leg and told me it's raining. Are you intentionally being dishonest, or do you not see reason?
Fuck you. The standard version was an infantry mounted variant, that most people automatically assumed to be equivalent to a mech mounted variant, even though the mech mounted variant is over 10 times larger.The Mech version outwieghing the standard version can be considered plausible by the fact that the MG in question could easily be an array of such similar machineguns. However, since we've already shown disparity in caliber size in every other kinetic weapon in the game...
I suppose that you'll contest that the shorter range of this 20-30mm cannon compared to the massive range of the similarly-sized AC/2 is due entirely to barrel length and powder charge?
Do I have to draw you a fucking clue? Its called this. SHOW ME THE FUCKING MATH THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.God you're fucking stupid. How many times do I have to repeat myself. PHYSICS SHOWS THAT THERE IS A LOGICAL LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF RECOIL A MECH CAN TAKE. THERE IS NO MAGIC RECOIL ABSORBING FORCE FIELD. THIS MEANS WE CAN DEFINE AN UPPER LIMIT TO MECH FIREPOWER BASED ON THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FORCE A MECH COULD TAKE BEFORE TOPPLING OVER.
Do you still not understand it? Do I have to draw you a picture?
Thankfully, the quote said nothing about that and actually, we do know that movement in btech is limited to 3 sec from Solaris rules.You...do realize that one "turn" in battletech is not one second, right? Right? Even if we assume the standard motive capabilities of a mech are okay in the universe, (which I have been) there is STILL a logical limit on how much force they can take before they are knocked on their giant robot asses.
Oh really? Please do. Let's be nice and assume that the autocannon class 10 is the 100m calibre. Using a ten round burst, that means that the autocannon fires ten 100m shells at a min velocity of 450m/s(assuming weapons fire= 1 sec. As the LRMs calc show, its actually 0.9s.) Of course, this ignores the fact that autocannons are able to engage in space, where they have a range of kilometers, thus, neccesitating a much higher muzzle velocity. If the shell is like that of the M14, then that's 20*10*450=9e4NYou're an idiot if you can't see that all that quote does is give me the ammunition I need to determine how high or low the maximum firepower of a Mech's autocannon is.
In that case, you already FUCKING AGREE WITH ME YOU FUCKING NUMBSKULL.I won't deny that Mech armor offers some protection and deflection, but by and large, it still ablates when hit with enough energy that would be required to penetrate it in order to protect the critical systems inside.
no you shithead. I specifically stated no such thing. Stop strawmanning my position.What specialized propeties do Battletech weapons have? So far, all you've done is wanked that the armor is uber and the weapons are uber, but given no logical reason for it. You've shown an appalling grasp of physics and the methods of observation, instead trying to claim that because BTech does science so badly, we have to throw science and the scientific method completely out the window and make special rules for BTech because, well, you say so. Bullshit. Cite what makes BTech weapons so obscenely special, or shut the fuck up about it and admit that your argument is flawed.
1. what is the inconsistency?"It's not stupid because they're consistant." Might work, except that we've shown several cases of inconsistancy, especially concerning the Mackie trial. You've yet to show HOW BTech armor and weapons are "special" when no special tech is ever claimed for the weapons (just the armor) and the infamous Mackie trial doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
The inclusion of Battlespace is irrelevant here. The increase in ranges can be attributed to numerous other factors, such as the microgravity environment, lack of atmospheric resistance, and differing mounts for Aerospace Fighters and Ships.
You obviously haven't read the charging attack calcs done by LC before, have you? I suggest you go find them. The above was why LordSathis made the claim that WW1 tanks are on par with mechs.So you're seriously saying that all that's needed is large mass, and that Kinetic energy has nothing to do with it? Wow. Fucking brilliant. Why don't mech's self-destruct when they collide with each other at low speeds then?
Brillance! Thanks for saying the obvious! However, its also canon fact that there are cannons with such variety in calibre.One might expect the range for an AC/2 to be 20-30mm, while the range of an AC/5 to be 40-50mm. However, it makes no damn sense whatsoever to have an AC/2 itself range the entire scope from 20-50mm, because once you vary enough from one end to the other, the ballistics would fundamentally change, making it behave as a different "class" of weapon.
Bullfucking shit you asshole."Hur hur hur this game is so unrealistic that I can say anything I want about it and not worry about getting my ass reamed by not following the scientific method!"
Sorry, doesn't fly.
Really? You addressed the range theory at all? Don't bullshit me. U haven't even elaborated on that yet, other than touching on the autocannons muzzle velocity and the working assumption that the armour is responsible for the simulated range, and you done it by essentially saying that the canon facts are inadmissable as evidence. Wonderful job mate.I don't deny that there is ECM in the BTech universe, just that it's responsible for a Gundam-like effect. Meanwhile, your own theory has holes shot all up in it. Maybe something using better science would come up with a more consistant answer?
Because the ablative model ignores a single fact, that is, the armour doesn't just ablate. Its also stops incoming shells. This is an OBSERVED fact. More importantly, the observed range of mech weapons is LINKED to armour protection. Against forces that do not have this pecularility, there is no reason why mech ranges, especially for beam weapons would not increase.I fail to see how the Ablating model DOESN'T work for BTech. Have you perhaps considered that up until the inclusion of the Gauss Rifle, most high-end weapons in fact were designed to fire clustered munitions which caused more armor to ablate than a smaller cluster would? This could easily explain the shorter ranges we see with larger damage kinetic weapons. But no, you have to wave your hand and come up with something that makes no sense in order to explain this away. Meanwhile, it wouldn't change the fact that massed fire from multiple gears using 25mm autocannons and what are essentially SRM pods would eventually take down a mech from considerable range on the ground.
It would be nice to compare the Btech PD systems against the HG, but considering that the only way to really demonstrate those abilities would require one to bring back the SLN, which fought extended battles using ECM and MCM against the defence grids, with 25 warships engaging a hundred drones and an unknown number of guns and missiles, successfully distracting or crippling Earth automated spaceborne defence grid before being wiped out.(SL sourcebook)And in space for Heavy Gear, range is also increased (hex size in ground warfare is 50m, space warfare is 500m, air combat is 250m). Of course, in HG space combat, nukes are thrown around like candy, because CEF and Terra Novans don't have some silly sense of "honor" keeping them from nuking the fuck out of each other in the void.
And so? You do know that in contemporary terms, the change really isn't fucking noticeable? We're talking 270m-600m here. Not 2-3km.Once again, I will have to point out that weapons of vastly different caliber will have vastly different ballistic models, and attempting to group them together is lunacy. You can wave your hands as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the properties of a weapon do change considerably between the different bore sizes.
Not neccesarily....... I hate to bring out the jade falcon trilogy, but mech acrobatrics was observed there. Not to mention that mechs can easily go prone.... the problem is getting up afterwards. The wolf dragoons used this tactic to maximise dropship supporting fire before. Certainly, they're more acrobatic, but maneveurability? Probably the gears if one go by the fluff as opposed to the computer games.Hotfoot wrote:Going back to the comparisons for a moment, Gears are considerably slower than their mech counterparts. Your standard Hunter/Jager's top walking speed is 42kph, 72kph for roller mode. CEF Frames are faster, but tend to be more lightly armored.
However, Gears would seem to be much more manueverable than Mechs, capable of acrobatic feats in the hands of Duelists, easily going prone, and so forth. Outside of the occasional "climbing" with mechs, some rudimentary dancing, and so on, similar levels of agility do not seem to be apparent.
The RHA penetration isn't available, however, using the classic assumption of AC/20=120mm, then one gets a 7e6J per AC/20 salvo. Its dramatically weaker than contemporary values, although as I said before, its a conservative estimate because the "true" muzzle velocity is not 270m/s.Now, the purpose of determining the RHA penetration of BTech weapons isn't a concern so much for determining the strength of BTech armor, but rather their effectiveness against Heavy Gear Vehicles. You can CLAIM that a 180mm cannon will shred an Aller MBT, but if it's low-velocity, the KE might not match with your claims.
Of course. Assuming that the range inverse problem doesn't kick in. However, the inverse is also true, mech energy weapons gain an increased range benefit, possibily achieving the "kilometers" range quoted from Battlespace. Although the accuracy shouldn't be that good.Since we have established that all you need is a 20mm round to create havoc with Mechs, and LAC ammo is 25mm, has automatic fire and high range, it's clear that Heavy Gear weapons, even with the lightest of anti-vehicular weapons, would be effective. Given that range goes up with higher-caliber guns, regardless of the fact that BTech armor negates most of the KE provided by the velocity, the more massive rounds will still do damage.
I'm not familar with converting KE to RHA penetration. However, I do know that the KE values for mech ballistic weapons are contemporary with 100mm-120mm main gun values now, although their penetrative abilities is obviously weakened for the gauss rifle. More importantly, we do know that a mech large laser melts half a ton of armour, which for simplicity state is calculated to be steel.Meanwhile, in order to damage Heavy Gear Vehicles, a certain degree of RHA penetration must be met. To keep things easy, all you have to do to damage a gear is provide proof of 64mm RHA penetration, and to damage a tank, you need to show 625mm RHA penetration.
In order to effectively "one-shot" a gear, 225mm minimum must be met, and in order to "one-shot" a tank, 1600mm minimum must be met.
Start your calculations!
That's a very ignorant statement. ECM is only one part of the whole equation. There's the dubious effectiveness of some weapons at long range (ex. no tight groupings), there's the sensor and targetting interference that's only overcome by spending much more mass on powerful targetting and sensor systems, and there's the factor that mechs are agile things with excellent situational awareness. At range, mechs weaving between cover reduces effective direct fire effectiveness, as well as their inherent maneuverability and accleration properties.Typhonis 1 wrote:I have a question...if ECM is so prevelant then why haven't the Houses started using wire guided missles?
This then fails to account for why several thousand 20mm shells are less effective than a short burst of high velocity 20mm shells (or even, a single shell). Never mind that your insistance of multiple, tightly-grouped shells is thrown out the window with Long Toms, Gauss Rifles, and other single shot weaponry proven capable of penetrating Mech armor.PainRack wrote:It does that because it assumes that a tight grouping of MULTIPLE shells is required to break through mech armour.
Goody. This mean that if I come up with more quotes which say "He couldn't fire his SRMs yet, he wasn't in range, his opponent was more than 300m away", that mean you'll shut the fuck up? Gee, let me get my Stackpole collection...Stop the BS hotfoot. What did Lord Sathis ask for? Right, he asked for novel incidents where the range shown was greater than game mechanics.
I showed it to him.
You do know by the rules of logic that as long as another novel doesn't clearly state that the max range is "...", then the upper limit holds?
Never mind that even I have attributed the guns to being ARRAYS of .50 Caliber weapons. Something which would easily explain the difference in mass (as would additional armoring, cooling, etc.). Oh well, pity you didn't consider that a 20mm cannon isn't 10 times as massive as a 12.7mm cannon either, and thus is insufficient proof towards your insistance that ALL Machineguns are 20mm or higher in size.Fuck you. The standard version was an infantry mounted variant, that most people automatically assumed to be equivalent to a mech mounted variant, even though the mech mounted variant is over 10 times larger.
And this explains why machineguns have higher damage to mechs in your model than AC/2's.Nope. The orginal speculation was over accuracy and grouping, although there were problems with that as well. Frankly, the only thing of difference is ROF. While the machine guns has a cyclic rate of 4800 rounds per sec,sustained rate of 48 rounds per sec, the autocannon known ROF is only ten.
Take a projectile. Accelerate it over a given distance (the length of a barrel). You can, from there, get the average acceleration applied to the projectile. Multiple the acceleration by the mass of the object. You have the force. Apply force to the Mech in question. Include torque based on the height of the weapon above the ground (in the case of mechs, anywhere from 4-10m). If the weapon is on an arm, figure out rough mass of the arm, applying torque to appropriate joints, then to the mech.Do I have to draw you a fucking clue? Its called this. SHOW ME THE FUCKING MATH THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.
Shown easily with the Gauss Rifle, even using your stats. Meanwhile, please, do tell me when figurative language became scientifically valid? "Stop on a dime" offers zero mathematical value, as it is a phrase not meant to be a scientific descriptor, and it is commonly used in relative terms. "Stop on a dime" used in reference to, say, a motorcycle could not possibly mean the same thing when used in reference to, say, a drag racing car. Unless, of course, you're being an idiot. Similar phrases pop up all over in science fiction. "Lasers couldn't penetrate our deflector shields", "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of the Force", "Great shot kid, that was one in a million!" We don't take them literally, because they're not MEANT to be literal. You might be able to get a ballpark figure with them, but nothing concrete.From momentum calcs, the Battlemech gyro is able to effect a counter-balancing moment of(time differential assumed to be 1 sec)
1 ton gyro= 20000*240=4.8e6N
2 ton gyro= 25000*360=9e6N
3 ton gyro= 100000*150=1.5e7N
(Using 20 ton 5/8 mech, Commando, Atlas, with regards to mech construction rules of gyro weight, including the "stop on a dime" quote from BMR)
Show me that the recoil would overtax the gyro first asshole.
Show your math a bit more completely, if you don't mind. Moreover, try again with a high and a low end, low end being "Stop on a Dime", high end being 10 seconds. See what this gets you. Don't forget to account for Torque.Thankfully, the quote said nothing about that and actually, we do know that movement in btech is limited to 3 sec from Solaris rules.
You're assuming that the limits has been exceeded, without FUCKING showing that the limits been exceeded. Show the FUCKING math!
1. You're neglecting the distance of acceleration. It does not take the bullet one second from ignition of the powder to leave the barrel. This increases the required force significantly.Oh really? Please do. Let's be nice and assume that the autocannon class 10 is the 100m calibre. Using a ten round burst, that means that the autocannon fires ten 100m shells at a min velocity of 450m/s(assuming weapons fire= 1 sec. As the LRMs calc show, its actually 0.9s.) Of course, this ignores the fact that autocannons are able to engage in space, where they have a range of kilometers, thus, neccesitating a much higher muzzle velocity. If the shell is like that of the M14, then that's 20*10*450=9e4N
Your grasp of physics is truly wretched. Allow me to paint this out for you in a clearer way.Okay, if its 0.9, it go up but I don't feel like digging a calculater to do it, so, let's be nice and assume it give you 1e5n. That's means you're short of the min by 1 fucking order of magnitude.
Doesn't matter that much in the calculation, but I find it utterly hilarious how you go on about how variable the AC rounds are, but yet somehow, despite all of that, they are uniformly 10kg.While we're at it, you want to know the amount of force that's impacting on your precious gear? Or calculate the penetration and damage value from there? My math is swimming right now, so, I let you do it. Its quite simple. Of course, you should want to use Btech weights instead of RL weights, where the AC/10 round only weigh 10kg.
Excempt I say that penetration and ablation can happen even with Mech-mounted machineguns and AC/2s, whereas you seem to dispute this fact, and claim (ludicriously) that even single 120mm shells can be shrugged off without any damage to the armor whatsoever.In that case, you already FUCKING AGREE WITH ME YOU FUCKING NUMBSKULL.I won't deny that Mech armor offers some protection and deflection, but by and large, it still ablates when hit with enough energy that would be required to penetrate it in order to protect the critical systems inside.
Fine. I say that machineguns and AC/2's can wear down a mech's armor in a nontrivial period of time. Do you disagree?no you shithead. I specifically stated no such thing. Stop strawmanning my position.
You're right. I'm not going to hold you to the Kilojoule lasers or whatever the hell that crap was. I will hold you to the fact that BTech energy weapons are horrendously ineffiencient, based on the amount of waste heat they throw out, but that's about it. This argument has been entirely about the ablation threshold of Mech armor and the relative firepower of their guns, using their kinetic weapons as a basis.I said that the standardised arguments about how mech weapons are weak is nonsensical. Instead, the key to doing damage is based on mass, as is clearly seen. The mechanism is unknown, therefore, the "cardboard" argument is hogwash. Hell, in this case, the argument wasn't even about cardboard, but about range .
I'm fully aware of the methodology behind SoD. However, I have issue with your conclusions, because it does not explain how a gauss cannon or long tom can do damage to a mech, or even a single round from an AC/20, when a high-powered 120mm cannon could not even damage the armor in the Mackie Trial. There is an inconsistancy there, and instead of throwing out the Mackie Trial as an aberattion, you cling to it. This is where almost all of my problems come from, and incidentally, yours as well.As for the second, Bull,FUCKING,SHIT.
I clearly stated that SOD is important and in SOD, internal consistency is key, as opposed to "real" physics. You are aware of SOD, right? It means using the scientific method to explore the fictional universe, and using them, we clearly see that mech physics aren't real physics. Therefore, normal arguments about how deforming energy is the key to doing damage doesn't apply, however, the observed fact that mass is the key to scaling damage IS.
The Merkava cannon is not significantly different from other big guns commonly employed in the Battletech system. The fact that it did not do ANYTHING to the armor of the Mackie is inconsistant. The armor should have ablated or deflected the shot in order to comply with your model. It doesn't. Given the low ranking of the Mackie Trial results in a canon analysis, you should have tossed it long ago.1. what is the inconsistency?
The scaling up is universal, is it not? Regardless, it's irrelevant. The scaling up in space is shown equally well in both systems, and can easily be explained to the lack of terrain, gravity, and atmosphere, without needing any other significant modifications.2. Who said anything about aerospace fighters and ships? I was talking about BATTLEMECHS FIGHTING IN SPACE.
You can ignore something if it is a largely unsupported abberation, an outlier. If something only shows up maybe once or twice, it's pretty easy to say, "well, gee, that doesn't look right". It could be a typo, it could be bad proofreading and errorchecking. You need to corroborate your sources, find out where there is the most agreement, and use those numbers whenever possible, rather than using everything when it can cause serious complications.Brillance! Thanks for saying the obvious! However, its also canon fact that there are cannons with such variety in calibre.But a machinegun array CAN'T POSSIBLY be 12.7mm
Pretty much the only thing that's special about your model is that the armor is much better at resisting high-velocity shells than it is at resisting lower velocity shells. Which is pretty much the problem, and why everyone calls it weak. Sure, a Mech might be better suited to withstanding a few high-end MBT cannon hits, but due to the ablating nature of the armor, it will fall quite quickly to many smaller cannons all firing in unison. That is the flaw to the system that is inherant in pretty much any way you describe the armor. Meanwhile, other armor systems rely on being entirely resistant to smaller fire, or at least largely so, only to be taken down by sufficiently large firepower.Bullfucking shit you asshole.
The scientific method has been consistenly applied. Its called observation, hypothesis, experiment and shift to theory. So far, the only key problems with the range theory is the lack of a mechanism(not uncommon in sci-fic) and observed increased range against stationary targets and the sole reason why that is so is because of my canon policy, which treats the Somerset Strikers as the equivalent of an adventure holovid produced by the Federated Commonwealth.
Mech armour is a total different kettle of fish altogether and the mass impacter model needs massive work. However, its also clear that the arguments that mech armour is extremely weak is hogwash.
Oh, I'm sorry, where is it stated that I have to come up with an alternate theory in order to show that yours doesn't work? Oh, right. I don't.Really? You addressed the range theory at all? Don't bullshit me. U haven't even elaborated on that yet, other than touching on the autocannons muzzle velocity and the working assumption that the armour is responsible for the simulated range, and you done it by essentially saying that the canon facts are inadmissable as evidence. Wonderful job mate.
Space isn't ground, dipshit. I don't know how many times I have to go over that. Meanwhile, why not get the info on those long toms? Where they emplacements, mech-mounted, tank mounted, or what? As for the attacking of fighters and bombers, sure, let's see some numbers. Would you get too pissy if I told you that everything you've described is handled in Heavy Gear as it is, standard, without needing to make excuses for it?You want to start going over why mechs targeting computers are optimised to engage at kilometers(Battlestech conversion to Battlespace rules) and why they are able to engage in space? Much less the aerotech discussions, and the observed ability to engage bombing fighters, which some people would have you believed was all conducted at low, strafing range? Hey, while we're at it, let's talk about how two long toms situatied in seperate cities can engage in an artillery duel, even though they're only kilometers apart if we are to believe game mechanics and were able to engage attacking aerospace fighters.
Yes, because when I say it ablates, I mean that the second you piss on it the armor melts away. Nice strawman, but no. I've already said how the ablating model works, if you're going to attack some other version of it, go fuck yourself in the corner and come back when you're done.Because the ablative model ignores a single fact, that is, the armour doesn't just ablate. Its also stops incoming shells. This is an OBSERVED fact. More importantly, the observed range of mech weapons is LINKED to armour protection. Against forces that do not have this pecularility, there is no reason why mech ranges, especially for beam weapons would not increase.
Whatever. Don't forget to corroborate and not just cling to singular outliers.Fuck it, like I said to Batman and Gunhead. Give me a month grace and I dig up the relevent quotes.
You just don't get it. LACs are the lightest weapon fielded, and with the lowest range. Artillery can literally fire from beyond the curvature of the planet, to say nothing of the orbital artillery arrays. Gears, Striders, Tanks, Artillery, Gunships, Fighters, Bombers, Landships, all are factors on Terra Nova, and while the combined weight of the Inner Sphere could eventually crush all the worlds in Heavy Gear by numbers alone, the attrition rate would likely be horrendous.As for the last conclusion, go ahead. AC/2s are a fucking annoyance, that's easily overrun by mechs, hovercraft and last but not least, artillery and aerospace fighters. A thousand mechs fought on Tukayid......... and additional thousands vehicles, infantry platoons and aerospace fighters were similarly engaged.
Heavy Gear likes to detect you from half the solar system away and toss nukes at speeds where a few seconds of PD fire is all you'll get. Just sayin'.It would be nice to compare the Btech PD systems against the HG, but considering that the only way to really demonstrate those abilities would require one to bring back the SLN, which fought extended battles using ECM and MCM against the defence grids, with 25 warships engaging a hundred drones and an unknown number of guns and missiles, successfully distracting or crippling Earth automated spaceborne defence grid before being wiped out.(SL sourcebook)
Yes, because nothing else matters aside from how much they'll drop over distance, though that is still a concern even at 270-600m. Consider, for a moment, the difference in drop between a projectile moving 200m/s and 450m/s over the distance of 600m. Now also consider the difference in recoil, KE, and so on.And so? You do know that in contemporary terms, the change really isn't fucking noticeable? We're talking 270m-600m here. Not 2-3km.
Last but not least, what makes you think you can ignore the canon difference in calibre for weapons type? Oh wait, I forgot, you think that its not using "science". Last time I checked, science means making assumptions from the OBSERVATIONS, as opposed to making observations from the assumptions.
My problem with using ECM as an example is that it seems to me, at least that ECM-capable equipment is sparingly used, and when it is, ranges decrease further from the norms. It still doesn't help to explain the natural range limitations.Nephtys wrote:That's a very ignorant statement. ECM is only one part of the whole equation.
The grouping bit I can buy, that's good. I question where the ambient interference comes from and where it is mentioned, however, but if shown could be a decent factor. Meanwhile, Mech acceleration is quite good, canonically speaking, especially for the medium-sized mechs, which I consider to be the baseline for BT.There's the dubious effectiveness of some weapons at long range (ex. no tight groupings), there's the sensor and targetting interference that's only overcome by spending much more mass on powerful targetting and sensor systems, and there's the factor that mechs are agile things with excellent situational awareness. At range, mechs weaving between cover reduces effective direct fire effectiveness, as well as their inherent maneuverability and accleration properties.
Actually, a wire-guided system might not be that bad for the BTech big missiles, like the Arrow IV. It would, of course, be less than optimal for S-LRMs, given the total number of wires needed.All that wire-guided missiles would do is marginally increase missile accuracy at the cost of being bulkier. The same effect is achieved with Artemis IV and V fire control systems anyway, which are wireless.
'Natural' range in BT terms seems longer when sudden movement and lack of cover is taken into account. That's why even in Battletech mapsizes, Aerotech fighters have far extended ranges. A game mechanic sure, but it really make more sense. My gun has problems targetting a jinking mech changing velocity and direction rapidly, diving around hills and trees for cover. But against a fighter that cannot jink due to the nature of aerodynamics, or must thrust relatively slowly to evade in space, my gun can target them fine. Not to mention in the air, there's less to throw off my various sensors and targetting computers, and my computers are configured for maximum accuracy at range, not maximum speed of producing firing solutions.Hotfoot wrote:My problem with using ECM as an example is that it seems to me, at least that ECM-capable equipment is sparingly used, and when it is, ranges decrease further from the norms. It still doesn't help to explain the natural range limitations.Nephtys wrote:That's a very ignorant statement. ECM is only one part of the whole equation.
Hotfoot wrote:Actually, a wire-guided system might not be that bad for the BTech big missiles, like the Arrow IV. It would, of course, be less than optimal for S-LRMs, given the total number of wires needed.All that wire-guided missiles would do is marginally increase missile accuracy at the cost of being bulkier. The same effect is achieved with Artemis IV and V fire control systems anyway, which are wireless.
BR 60:Typhonis 1 wrote:okShiloette stats.acc -3 dm x18 br 60 perks and flaws..area effect,HEAT, guided,min range-1
